| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| ACC-491 | ACC-491-O500 | CLC - Tyronco Foundation COSO Case Study | 50.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | 2: Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | 3: Satisfactory (75.00%) | 4: Good (85.00%) | 5: Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Criteria | 100.0% |
| Completed Case | 14.0% | A completed case is not presented. | NA | NA | NA | A completed case is presented. |
| Auditing Standards | 14.0% | An explanation of which auditing standards were included in the case study and how this provides insight into a career in accounting is not presented. | An explanation of which auditing standards were included in the case study and how this provides insight into a career in accounting is presented, but does not demonstrate a clear understanding of auditing standards. | An explanation of which auditing standards were included in the case study and how this provides insight into a career in accounting is presented. | An explanation of which auditing standards were included in the case study and how this provides insight into a career in accounting demonstrates a clear understanding of auditing standards. | An explanation of which auditing standards were included in the case study and how this provides insight into a career in accounting demonstrates a superior understanding of auditing standards. |
| Working With a Client | 14.0% | An explanation of how the information presented in the case study would help the student in determining whether to continue to work with a client is not presented. | An explanation of how the information presented in the case study would help the student in determining whether to continue to work with a client is presented, but lacks detail or is incomplete. | An explanation of how the information presented in the case study would help the student in determining whether to continue to work with a client is presented. | An explanation of how the information presented in the case study would help the student in determining whether to continue to work with a client is detailed. | An explanation of how the information presented in the case study would help the student in determining whether to continue to work with a client is thorough. |
| COSO Framework | 14.0% | An explanation of how the COSO framework relates to auditing standards is not presented. | An explanation of how the COSO framework relates to auditing standards is presented, but lacks detail or is incomplete. | An explanation of how the COSO framework relates to auditing standards is presented. | An explanation of how the COSO framework relates to auditing standards is detailed. | An explanation of how the COSO framework relates to auditing standards is thorough. |
| Audit Risk | 14.0% | An explanation of how the completion of this exercise impacts audit risk is not presented. | An explanation of how the completion of this exercise impacts audit risk is presented, but lacks detail or is incomplete. | An explanation of how the completion of this exercise impacts audit risk is presented. | An explanation of how the completion of this exercise impacts audit risk is detailed. | An explanation of how the completion of this exercise impacts audit risk is thorough. |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 8.0% | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Maree29
Rubric_Print_Format2.xlsx
